Related Stories

A citizen grand jury will not be convened to consider criminal charges against the former police officer who killed John T. Williams, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced Friday.

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes also did not request Satterberg take action despite a letter from attorneys representing Williams' family.

However, Holmes said he's concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the lawful use of the state's deadly-force statute and wants further public debate before the next legislative session.

"I believe that the statute should be amended, for example, to add a 'reasonable belief' requirement or perhaps to remove the 'malice' element altogether -- keeping in mind that a prosecutor would still have to prove the objective unreasonable of a police officer's actions beyond a reasonable doubt in any manslaughter case."

Satterberg announced Feb. 16 he wouldn't charge the former officer, Ian Birk.

That decision drew criticism from the Williams family's attorneys, who suggested Satterberg took Birk at his word while ignoring other witnesses to the shooting. It also sparked violent protests, including some anarchists.

Attorneys for the Williams family sent the request for a civil grand jury to Satterberg on Tuesday morning, and also sent the request to Holmes urging him to request that Satterberg summon a jury.

"According to the Seattle Police Department's Firearms Review Board, Officer Birk erred in several ways leading up to the shooting of Mr. Williams," Satterberg wrote in his Friday response. "Because of these mistakes, Mr. Williams was tragically and needlessly killed.

"But, as is clear from the language of the statute, the law provides that the officer may be prosecuted only if he acted with malice or bad faith. Making a series of tactical errors is not enough.

"Neither the finding of the Firearms Review Board nor the findings of the Inquest Jury support a conclusion that the officer acted with malice or acted in bad faith. This, as tragic as Mr. Williams' death was, the law directs that this officer may not be punished through use of the criminal law."

Washington law states "a public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable" pursuant to section 9A.16.040.

Birk resigned the afternoon of Feb. 16, the day the Firearms Review Board findings were officially announced.

Answering 13 questions as part of a proceeding that carried no legal weight, the inquest jury was also split over whether Williams actually posed an imminent threat to Birk. The 27-year-old officer was hired by the department in 2008 and was not armed with a Taser when the shooting occurred.

Four of the eight jurors said they believed Birk thought Williams posed a threat. Four couldn't determine whether he did.

Only one juror believed that, regardless of Birk's perception, Williams actually posed a threat. Four said he didn't, and three said they couldn't decide.

The fatal shooting was the most publicized incident in a series of violent interactions between citizens and Seattle police that have prompted a federal investigation of the department on a number of issues, presumably including the Williams case.

"The grand jury is designed to gather facts, not conduct legal review of a prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal prosecutor or to debate legal interpretations of a statute," Satterberg wrote Friday. "The facts surrounding this tragic incident are full developed, and a grand jury would simply be duplicating what the Inquest Jury has already done.

"Although the circumstances of this case are undeniably tragic and the decision not to prosecute the police officer may be a disappointment to you and others, the facts of this case simply do not warrant the extraordinary step of convening a grand jury under RCW 10.27.030. There is no 'showing of good cause' to justify a grand jury."